Proofs, Or Lack Thereof, A concern of causing false assumptions Options

[Bystander]

That statement does make sense to me legally as I doubt from even the little I know of the facts that all matters were fully settled by the agreement I have seen posted. IT makes more sense to me than challenging the validity of the contract to have it set aside.

Others have speculated here the idea that Linda signed the agreement under duress (and I indicated before it had been my understanding without an attorney) and that duress might be a reason to set the contact aside. Although I doubted that possibility from the facts (not speculation) I had, your statement as I said above makes more sense to me.

nw

My point has nothing to do with what the law allows or doesn't allow. It is about the fact that many have said on here that she didn't get to have legal counsel. She did. Period. Now where did that falsehood come from? Originally, I mean?

Evidence, please?

I understand that court-filed documents demonstrate that Dan and Linda each received the same salary.

Not in the last year. Find the evidence on the net. Fran coninually says those kind of records for a not profit are accesible to anyone.

But, Bystander, I call it as I see it. I always have. I am on Linda's side, and I do not attempt to hide that fact. I do not believe that Danny had a Biblical reason to divorce Linda. But, I have not criticized him in regard to the divorce and remarriage. You know that if you have regularly read my posts.

Yes, I have been critical in other areas, as I believe it to be justified.
[/quote]

Yes Greg, I agree that you have been more fair than most here in your opinions. You have been wise not to criticize about the remarriage in my opinion. Why because, so far, evidence has not been released to prove her guilty, but on the otherhand, she cannot "prove" innocence. My point being is that truly, only 3 people and God know what really transpired until if or when, evidence is shown one way or the other. Therefore, because there is too much unknown in this realm, no one needs to be criticizing or judging the biblical aspects.

As far as the litigation goes, I would venture to guess that probably 95% of court documents can be challenged for one thing or another. Doesn't mean the challenge will be succesful.
Just my opinion

[Noahswife]

My point has nothing to do with what the law allows or doesn't allow. It is about the fact that many have said on here that she didn't get to have legal counsel. She did. Period. Now where did that falsehood come from? Originally, I mean?
Not in the last year. Find the evidence on the net. Fran coninually says those kind of records for a not profit are accesible to anyone.

At some point I am going to have to personally go back and see where I first was given that impression or if I formed my own opinion that was affirmed by other's speculation. But regardless, I have stated it as one reason I was here in the first place wondering what was happening at 3ABN and not once did anyone correct me. Oh well. That is why every point must be looked at and analyzed for what type of evidence supports it. This one error does not change how I look at the whole picture but it does remind me to keep searching for demonstrable and verifiable facts. I try very hard to look beyond speculation and emotional exchanges but when I ask questions I seldom get answers from either "camp". So I do appreciate Observer correcting my statement.

nw

[Observer]

Re: "However, as part of Linda's support team you would have knowledge if any action with local or state bars has been taken. "

I am not aware of anyone advising Linda to take such action. The standard is very high. The courts will suggest that an individual needing legal help has some responsibilities as to who is chosen to represent them.

I think that most of us would believe that our emotional energy, and other such resources should better be expended on other issues.

As a military officer: Pick your battles. Don't be distracted by minor squables.

This post has been edited by Observer: Feb 6 2007, 02:41 PM

[Bystander]

Let's think about this for a minute. Can someone remind me if her removal from the board was before or after the divorce was obtained. If after, then she would still be entitled to her share of the marital property if Danny still would be considered to have something he was entitled to as a co-founder of 3ABN. Can someone help me on that?
[/quote]

It is my understanding her removal was before the divorce. As far as marital property, there seems to be a big misunderstanding here as usual. She already got more than her share, in my opinion. Danny bought our her share of the house and contents then, I believe if memory serves me, ended up giving her a good portion of the contents that he had already paid her for. To my knowledge she either took what she wanted or if she didn't, she was paid for that item. Unless something in the last 6 months has changed, that I don't know about, the only thing that was NOT settled was over some horses that they owned. It is my opinion that, that is what most of the lititgation has been about. Again, I say, unless something has changed that I don't know about. But lets get it straight that she was paid well for her share of the marital property and allowed to pick and choose what she took.

[Noahswife]

Re: "However, as part of Linda's support team you would have knowledge if any action with local or state bars has been taken. "

I am not aware of anyone advising Linda to take such action. The standard is very high. The courts will suggest that an individual needing legal help has some responsibilities as to who is chosen to represent them.

I think that most of us would believe that our emotional energy, and other such resources should better be expended on other issues.

As a military officer: Pick your battles. Don't be distracted by minor squables.

I do not think we are in any disagreement on any of these topics of discussion and your statements only help clarify certain matters for me. I had concerns that as posters began reading your comments about the legal counsel she obtained there might be a great deal of speculation.

Thanks for taking the time for your responses.

nw

[Bystander]

At some point I am going to have to personally go back and see where I first was given that impression or if I formed my own opinion that was affirmed by other's speculation. But regardless, I have stated it as one reason I was here in the first place wondering what was happening at 3ABN and not once did anyone correct me. Oh well. That is why every point must be looked at and analyzed for what type of evidence supports it. This one error does not change how I look at the whole picture but it does remind me to keep searching for demonstrable and verifiable facts. I try very hard to look beyond speculation and emotional exchanges but when I ask questions I seldom get answers from either "camp". So I do appreciate Observer correcting my statement.

nw

Not only were you "not corrected" but the false information was carried on, taken apart, ate and regurgitated and made to come to one conclusion. That once, again, all those horrible corrupt people had "forced" Linda to sign their contract with no legal counsel. Your statement about "searching" for "verifiable " facts one of the wisest statements I have read here. Common sense tell me If something like this has been mis represented, how many other things have been?

[Noahswife]

It is my understanding her removal was before the divorce. As far as marital property, there seems to be a big misunderstanding here as usual. She already got more than her share, in my opinion. Danny bought our her share of the house and contents then, I believe if memory serves me, ended up giving her a good portion of the contents that he had already paid her for. To my knowledge she either took what she wanted or if she didn't, she was paid for that item. Unless something in the last 6 months has changed, that I don't know about, the only thing that was NOT settled was over some horses that they owned. It is my opinion that, that is what most of the lititgation has been about. Again, I say, unless something has changed that I don't know about. But lets get it straight that she was paid well for her share of the marital property and allowed to pick and choose what she took.

It would be sad if the costs of litigation exceeded the value of any horses. However, there has been speculation that more is going on in this area than horses. How about the profit from the book that was written during the marriage?

Although you may conclude that Linda was fairly compensated with what she has received, the law may provide differently. One issue that I see and may be discussed directly or indirectly elsewhere is if she has been somehow precluded from/prejudiced in pursuing her professional career by things said or done by Danny or others at 3abn. Also, do you think Danny would be entitled to more than severance pay if he was asked to leave 3abn? Would he be entitled to something for having co-founded the organization? or for the non-monetary perks he was used to receiving?

nw

[Ralph]

It would be sad if the costs of litigation exceeded the value of any horses. However, there has been speculation that more is going on in this area than horses. How about the profit from the book that was written during the marriage?

Although you may conclude that Linda was fairly compensated with what she has received, the law may provide differently. One issue that I see and may be discussed directly or indirectly elsewhere is if she has been somehow precluded from/prejudiced in pursuing her professional career by things said or done by Danny or others at 3abn. Also, do you think Danny would be entitled to more than severance pay if he was asked to leave 3abn? Would he be entitled to something for having co-founded the organization? or for the non-monetary perks he was used to receiving?

nw

This is a key point. I don't know whether or not you have read all the posts regarding 3ABN, but this was one of the issues that was brought up quite early in the discussion.

[Noahswife]

This is a key point. I don't know whether or not you have read all the posts regarding 3ABN, but this was one of the issues that was brought up quite early in the discussion.

I have done my best to read hundreds of posts in the various topics regarding 3ABN in my few weeks here but I assure you I have not read them all but hope that has not made me sound foolish in any way.

I know I came to my own conclusion regarding the possible damage to any future ministry Ms. Shelton might start on her own based not only on the direct and indirect activities of 3ABN personnel but what seemed to me questionable decisions by the church she had attended or the one she desired to attend etc. Those were some of the early threads I read so I do not remember all the specifics.

Whether I came to my opinion independently or if it was influenced by someone else's statements.....I suspect the latter. But I am glad you agree it is a valid point/question.

nw

[princessdi]

Oh yeah now, they weren't making much, as far as the norm was concerned and for me them taking more would not have been a problem. If I remember correctly they still have to divide the marital property, which conveniently does not include 3ABN. I am not sure, but I would guess that the agreement was signed before the divorce, don't think Danny would leave town with Linda being able to talk while he was off in Guam move her out the way.......

Bystander:

I stated that Linda had legal advice prior to signing the agreement because that is fact.

However, if that agreement had fully settled all matters, or if it was fully satisfactory, there would be no litigation going on now.

In regard to Linda's salery, vs Danny's: I once obtained some 990s from the IRS. According to my memory, which may be faulty, of the three 990s that I obtained, Danny was listed as being paid slightly more than Linda, or the same (?) in two, and Linda was listed as being paid slightly more than Danny in one.

My memory may be wrong.

However, if you were reading the posts that I made at that time in Club Adventist, I posted a statement that both Danny and Linda had been underpaid, according to the amounts listed in the 990s. I suggested that a fair wage for Danny, at that time, would have been in the $70,000 to $75,000 range, as I remember.

Of course there remain issues that were mentioned by Judge Rowe in her 40 page decision in regard to other compensation that Danny and Linda might have recieved. I certainly cannot, and do not deal with those isseus.

But, Bystander, I call it as I see it. I always have. I am on Linda's side, and I do not attempt to hide that fact. I do not believe that Danny had a Biblical reason to divorce Linda. But, I have not criticized him in regard to the divorce and remarriage. You know that if you have regularly read my posts.

Yes, I have been critical in other areas, as I believe it to be justified.

[Noahswife]

Oh yeah now, they weren't making much, as far as the norm was concerned and for me them taking more would not have been a problem. If I remember correctly they still have to divide the marital property, which conveniently does not include 3ABN. I am not sure, but I would guess htat the agreement was signed before the divorce, don't think Danny would leave town with Linda being able to talk while he was off in Guam move her out the way.......

Bystander stated his belief that the agreement was signed prior to the divorce which is what I thought I recalled but did not want to state as certainty.

Bystander, I thank you and Observer for answering my question regarding Mr. Joy. Can you please now answer my other question as to what you think Danny is entitled to if we hypothetically assumed that he left 3ABN. Please do not comment on whether he should or should not leave and for what reason or not. Just assume for the purpose of the hypothetical that like Linda, he resigned and signed a contract. Would he get severance pay similar to what she was offered with a gag order or should he get something for being co-founder? What do you think would be fair? (and again, marital assets are not the issue here or what Linda did or did not get in her contract).

nw

This post has been edited by princessdi: Feb 6 2007, 04:33 PM

[Richard Sherwin]

3abn cannot be included in a marital agreement because as a non-profit the Shelton's do not own it nor could they have sold it. At least that is my understanding of how non-profits operate.

Richard

Oh yeah now, they weren't making much, as far as the norm was concerned and for me them taking more would not have been a problem. If I remember correctly they still have to divide the marital property, which conveniently does not include 3ABN. I am not sure, but I would guess that the agreement was signed before the divorce, don't think Danny would leave town with Linda being able to talk while he was off in Guam move her out the way.......

[princessdi]

Does this work for All nonprofits? i used to work for a FFA(foster family agnecy) for a while that was also a non profit, but it had an owner. This is interesting, I owuld really like to know how that works..........But like I said and NW is asking, what would they give to Danny as "severance" in the same or similar situation.....she was still shafted.

3abn cannot be included in a marital agreement because as a non-profit the Shelton's do not own it nor could they have sold it. At least that is my understanding of how non-profits operate.

Richard

[Richard Sherwin]

Yup I'm a country boy. When you wrote FFA, I thought Future Farmers of America

My question is would there be anyway for Danny to convert the non-profit 3abn into a personal asset? If he could, and did, then it seems like Linda would have a case for 1/2 of the value of the company when she left.

Richard

Does this work for All nonprofits? i used to work for a FFA(foster family agnecy) for a while that was also a non profit, but it had an owner. This is interesting, I owuld really like to know how that works..........But like I said and NW is asking, what would they give to Danny as "severance" in the same or similar situation.....she was still shafted.

[GrammieTana]

But, I am going to be honest here. I am tired of SDAs (or anyone else) thinking it is ok to not pay women equal salaries "for the good of the ministry" or ask people to subvert the law and "donate" their overtime hours rather than get paid for them or as I have read elsewhere, not use "GAP standards in their accounting practices. I am sorry but lack of education is NOT an excuse. As an SDA we are trained from childhood to "sacrifice" for the good of presenting the message to the world but I have seen too many instances of unfairness result and certainly a lack of commensurate sacrifice by those doing the asking (GW for example will never lose his child in Iraq or worry that he might).

I am in complete agreement with you NW! The church seems to have only one definition for the word sacrifice. It is well illustrated with the old movie newsreels during the 1940's when we were in WWII. There was a segment in which 6year old Margaret O"Brien was pictured, saying with a very pained look on her face as she urged people to, "Give, give 'til it hurts.' I was reminded of this some years ago when my pastor gave a sermon just before Christmas in which he admonished us very strongly that we must remember to be careful how much we spent on Christmas presents in comparison to how much we gave to the 'Lord's Work.' His intimation was that we needed to remember that it was better to 'sacrifice' than to give our children 'too much.'

While I agree with this in principle, I resent that we give God so little credit for His desire to be generous with His children. We spend so much time paying attention to the Curses in Deuteronomy 28, that we totally forget the Blessings and that both depend upon our obedience to His instructions, not on our willingness to sacrifice until it hurts! JMO

JT